What's the largest number of people you've shared a room with? (no privacy partition) |
Always gone solo |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
Just me and one other at most |
|
43% |
[ 17 ] |
Threesome |
|
12% |
[ 5 ] |
Foursome |
|
20% |
[ 8 ] |
Five including me |
|
5% |
[ 2 ] |
Half a dozen of us in a room! |
|
5% |
[ 2 ] |
A veritable dormitory! (7 or more) |
|
10% |
[ 4 ] |
|
Voted : 2 |
Total Votes : 39 |
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Does anyone think that tour operators might win a little more favour with punters if they priced their packages on a one couple per room basis?
Then they'd give single-occupancy surcharges, and over-occupancy discounts.
You'd no longer get peeved by apparently cheap deals that turn out to be expensive once you realise you aren't one of 4 or more sardines.
Perhaps we should petition a particular tour operator to become a little more enlightened and respect its customers intelligence?
OR is it actually very common indeed for groups of 4 buddies to want to cram into a single room on a bunk and double sofa bed? OR two couples to share a double room in Banff?
And let's also see an end to hidden extras (airport tax, tax de sejour, ski carriage, luggage storage fees, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
We have this problem as they keep trying to put me, hubby and 2 smelly teenage boys in the same room. Ask for 2 rooms and they think you are an alien. Also 2 6ft boys in a very small double bed is a no no too. Often US and Canadian rooms don't have single beds.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
If you are going to Canada or the Usa and need two rooms its usualy better to make your own arrangements particulary in Canada where hotel accomodation can be very cheap.
My wife doesn't ski so I go by myself and even as a single there is a saving and for a couple (particulary one with two smelly teenagers) you make a real saving.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
All the more reason to get a network going on this forum. Get loads of people with apartments & chalets in touch with the rest of us and, hey presto - problem solved!
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I think that pricing of rooms should be based on single occupancy, and then discounted for couples or more people who want to share. I say this because I smell, I snore, and I can't get a girlfriend, and so end up going on skiing holidays on my own. I haven't got any friends either. I'm really fed up of some of the extortionate surcharges for single occupancy of a room in a hotel, some of which can be as high as double the price of the holiday.
Anyone else got any opinions (about the surcharges, not about my personal hygiene!)
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Kramer, ok, maybe my question was itself bordering on a troll/FAQ, but there's no need to out-troll me.
Ok, how about this:
How about pricing rooms based on their reasonable occupancy (whether single, double or triple, etc.), rather than their theoretical maximum and often quite unreasonable occupancy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen, tried this last year, flight too expensive with AIr Canada, or too inconvenient ( 2 changes etc) with US companies. Ended up with Inghams for less than the flights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crosbie, I know exactly what you mean, I've seen quite a lot of holidays when the price is quoted on four people sharing a room, which is not so bad if it's a lads or ladies only skiing holiday, but not quite so good if you're two couples going away together (unless you're all extremely close!)
The thing about single supplements is that in low to mid season, most ski resorts are under occupied, it's not as if ski companies would be losing out on revenue by having single occupancy of rooms, but instead they use it as an excuse to extract more profit. I mean a single supplement of £100 would be reasonable, but to charge £650 for the privilege of not sharing a room is rather steep.
The other thing that annoys me is the way that they market room sharing as no single supplement charged as long as you are prepared to share with someone else. Club Med even says that it's your chance to start the holiday with a ready made friend - if I wanted to make friends, then I wouldn't be going on a skiing holiday on my own!
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Singles should try the Eldorador in Belle PLagne. Single rooms at no extra cost, only downside a shared bathroom with another single room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes this is a good one for single supplement avoidance. Great food. The best breakfast buffet I've had in France. Ski In Ski Out.
Last time, with Inghams, I got lucky and was allocated a twin instead at no extra cost. Sheer Luxury. Fingers are crossed for 28th when I return for the 5th time.
The real single rooms are tiny - a bit like a ship's cabin. You do have your own washbasin but you share a WC and also a shower in a common mini lobby with one other single.
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Quote: |
How about pricing rooms based on their reasonable occupancy (whether single, double or triple, etc.), rather than their theoretical maximum and often quite unreasonable occupancy?
|
This seems too sensible to be popular. The problems seem to arise mainly with apartments - hotels are perhaps less guilty of sardine tin filling. How about chalets ? Do they also indulge in people packing ?
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
There's always the "mezzanine bedroom" problem with chalets - the "room" that is actually just a couple of bunk beds stuffed in the hallway with a curtain...
|
|
|
|
|
|
My kids had a bunk room in La Rosiere, that had no room for them to stand up , just fall out of the door into the corridor.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Should be a standard charge for a room regardless of how many people use it. Its no cheaper for the operator to have less people. Problem with UK tour operators is that your are not just booking the room but also flight, food etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I whole heartedly agree with the idea. The standard French residence is designed to be for two adults and two children NOT four adults. What makes matters worse is that the underoccupancy suplements are so bloody expensive - a complete rip-off. The only way to get a good deal on an appartment and not be like sardines is to book it DIY or very very last minute when underoccupancy supplements mysteriously vanish when they want to get at least some money!
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
kuwait_ian wrote: |
The problems seem to arise mainly with apartments - hotels are perhaps less guilty of sardine tin filling. |
Many US/Canadian double rooms have twin 'double' beds presumably thus allowing couples to decide whether to have a bed each or to cram into one.
However, the tour operators can't help themselves but class the rooms as suitable for 4 persons.
|
|
|
|
|
|